Prime Lenses ,why?

anthony4335

I was just wondering what is the thing about the prime lenses ,especially the 50mm , is there any real advantage to them apart from the speed.

bovril

less glass elements too so they tend to be very sharp, very very sharp.

Fajitas!

They are generally much sharper, have faster, more reliable autofocus, and can leave in much more light - Much moreso than would be imaginable or practical with a zoom.

stcstc

sharpness is not as much of a difference as it used to be between decent prime and zoom in most cases

BUT a zoom is a compromise to minimise the number of lenses needed or changes etc.

some of the good quality primes are still far out there by themselves but they are massive money.

the difference between say the 50mm canon 1.8 and some of the decent zooms is marginal, but compared to some of the domestic zoom lenes like the kit lenses it is much sharper.

the reason these things are generally sharper, is they have sooo much less glass in them than zooms need.

ThOnda

And it is much easier to calculate them for just one focal length, therefore there is even smaller chromatic aberration.

mehfesto2

Don't mean to hi-jack the thread, but is the price difference between a 1.8 and 1.4 50mm prime lens justified?

0utpost31

But isn't lugging around so many prime lenses just impractical for a photographer?

For example, instead of bringing a 70-200mm 2.8 (and the obligatory 50mm in the póca) to a job, you could bring all these canon prime lenses such as:

50mm

60mm

85mm

135mm

180mm

200mm

I'd pick a zoom for practicality anyday. But then again, I only own one prime lens, so I may be missing something great. Don't think so though.

magicbastarder

i'm a great believer in doing things to make your life harder (within reason). with a prime, you may have to work harder for a shot than you would with a zoom. but it'll usually be a better shot for it.

also, the greater apertures allowed allow for better control of depth of field.

0utpost31

OK depth of field on a prime may be lovely and marshmellowy, but what does that have to do with the price of spuds in china?

AnCatDubh

In addition to the above - primes (due to whats been said above) are really suitable for portrait shooting - particularly glass quality, resulting sharpness and control of Bokeh/DOF.

beans

Don't forget, you can always simulate having a zoom by using your legs to move around.

You wouldn't have to bring a 50, a 60, and an 85 for example.

ThOnda

If you have 135mm (35mm film equivalent) lens, you would know why you have it and why you want to use it. And when.
Of course that zooms are more practical, easier to transport, you don't have to change lenses - just zoom in/out. Those are advantages of zoom lenses.
However ALL zoom lenses have compromises in their design. Barrel/cushion distortions, colour aberrations, size of the first lens (and therefore a filter).
The image quality of the prime is always the same (well, depending on Aperture). If you know that you'd be shooting indoors in small rooms, you would prefer having 28/2.4 lens to zoom 28-300/4.0-5.6 (made up examples).
I have nothing against zoom lenses, I love them and my best lens is 28-70/4. However having funds or professional need, I would consider buying according prime.

Borderfox

Image quality with a prime will (especially when using L primes) far outweigh anything that a zoom will produce, I use primes for indoor showjumping and they make shots that are simply impossible with a zoom.

0utpost31

primes are really suitable for portrait shooting - particularly glass quality, resulting sharpness

Sharp portraits are always rough. You can see flecks, spots, pores, zits, pock marks and scabs in sharp portrait photos. Portraits should be soft & gentle photos, unless you're in Iraq on a National Geo contract taking pics of soldiers.

Don't forget, you can always simulate having a zoom by using your legs to move around.

Not always as easy as that. This isn't my horse, it was on private land and I didn't want to get too close and scare him away, or have him trample all over me. With a wee prime I couldn't have gotten these.








Well I suppose if I had a 220mm prime and a 300mm prime respectively, I could have taken these pics. But I don't have the money for that stuff...

AnimalRights

Lens v. Primes-
Horses for courses.


/grabs jacket and leaves.

0utpost31

*tumbleweed*

democrates

AnimalRights wrote: »

Lens v. Primes-
Horses for courses.

+1, for starters goals are constrained by money and time budgets then it's down to dedication.

I did two subsequent shoots of my nieces using a 28-70mm f/2.8 then a 30mm f/1.4 both times aperture wide open. By far the best quality came from the prime using mf, those were when they were in situ playing with a tea-set, but when they were running around chasing bubbles it was only thanks to the zoom that I got various compositions.

That said the success rate for the prime was far better, the zoom autofocus couldn't always keep pace with the action causing a blurred subject while the prime might have captured too much around the subject but being so sharp at least something could be retrieved from a crop. I tried to use zoom and mf but when the subject is darting about randomly it's hard, need to practice.

0utpost31

democrates wrote: »

I tried to use zoom and mf but when the subject is darting about randomly it's hard, need to practice.

Are your nieces really fast alien creatures like the predator or something?

amcinroy

One major advantage of primes that has not been mentioned is their resistance to flare while shooting into the sun.

magicbastarder

0utpost31 wrote: »

Sharp portraits are always rough. You can see flecks, spots, pores, zits, pock marks and scabs in sharp portrait photos. Portraits should be soft & gentle photos, unless you're in Iraq on a National Geo contract taking pics of soldiers.

that's more an issue with digital than it is with lenses; i much prefer shooting portraits on film.

sunny2004

0utpost31 wrote: »

But isn't lugging around so many prime lenses just impractical for a photographer?

For example, instead of bringing a 70-200mm 2.8 (and the obligatory 50mm in the póca) to a job, you could bring all these canon prime lenses such as:

50mm

60mm

85mm

135mm

180mm

200mm

I'd pick a zoom for practicality anyday. But then again, I only own one prime lens, so I may be missing something great. Don't think so though.

Not sure about this list.. you have a 50 and 60 ? and a 180 and 200 ?
Why ?
Keep in mind that before zoom lenses people simple walked backwards and forwards ! I want to invent the word Body-Zoom

magicbastarder

0utpost31 wrote: »

OK depth of field on a prime may be lovely and marshmellowy, but what does that have to do with the price of spuds in china?

well, we *are* talking about the benefits of prime lenses?

fguihen

agree with many other posts here, zooms are great. I have two. The allow you a lot of freedom in shooting and less hassle of running forward and back from the subject using your legs to zoom, which takes much more time than using a zoom lens. You can get images of subjects that may be dangerous or you dont wana get close to.

this convinience comes at a price, image quality. Simplify it down. think of a single glass lens, one piece of convex glass, like you used in science class back in school. it has an exact focal point. move it in either direction toward or away from the piece of paper/wall you are focusing a light beam at and the point will be out of focus.

zoom lens's use many many many pieces of glass to compensate for this but all the glass introduces slight imperfections that are quite noticable at times to even an untrained eye.

a prime doesnt really have this problem as, the internal glass lens isnt moving so completely eliminates the need to compensate for a changing focal length.

This results in much sharper and distortion free images.

also the prime can use much wider apature values. when shooting indoors ( especially weddings) this can be super useful. it also allows you to be much more creative with your shots.

its easy to see the differences even with a cheap prime. i have the nifty 50 for canon and a sigma 17-70 zoom. i love the zoom, and its almost permanently on the camera for convinience, but the nifty takes much sharper images and can do this in much lower light levels. I have used the nifty indoors where I can put enough distance from a subject to fit it in.

i dont know how to break it down any further really. zoom lens's are really convinient and i will always use them as my main lens's, but if your looking for the absolute best image quality obtainable from your set up, you have to use primes, and carry a large bag of varying focal lengths, and be ready to work for a shot!

besides, a prime will teach you to walk around the subject, pick an angle that works , become better at composition and to work with what youve got.

its defo a good exercise to stick a cheapo prime onto your camera and use it exclusively for a few hours. it really gets your brain working.

Paulw

I own 3 prime lenses -

50mm f/1.4
100mm f/2.8 macro
300mm f/2.8 IS L

I also own a number of zoom lenses -

EF-S 10-22mm f/4.5 f/3.5-4.5
24-70mm f/2.8 IS L
70-200mm f/2.8 IS L
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS L

And a few more lenses somewhere missing from this list.

The advantages of primes for me - fast, sharp, quick focus, quality images, and super DOF. Once you go over 200mm, you need primes - for wildlife/sport.

All the primes are great for low light and for portrait images.

As for the 50mm f/1.8 v the 50mm f/1.4, I think one or two on here can offer direct comparison (Covey has borrowed my 50mm f/1.4 at the moment). The construction of these lenses is very different.

jackdaw

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Don't mean to hi-jack the thread, but is the price difference between a 1.8 and 1.4 50mm prime lens justified?

I think so ... the 50mm f1.4 is better quality aparently then the
24-70 f2.8 L ...

and thats an expensive lens ...

jackdaw

Paulw wrote: »

I own 3 prime lenses -

50mm f/1.4
100mm f/2.8 macro
300mm f/2.8 IS L

I also own a number of zoom lenses -

EF-S 10-22mm f/4.5 f/3.5-4.5
24-70mm f/2.8 IS L
70-200mm f/2.8 IS L
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS L

I'm drooling here over that collection !!!

darraghsherwin

Paulw wrote: »

The advantages of primes for me - fast, sharp, quick focus, quality images, and super DOF. Once you go over 200mm, you need primes - for wildlife/sport.

+1
The 300mm f/2.8L IS will beat any zoom in terms of sharpness, contrast and all the other advantages PaulWa has said.
For me, primes are only worth their money if they are going to be used for a specific area like wildlife and that is what you want to concentrate on.
So if you're photography is pretty general, you may not see a point in primes.

Darragh

Paulw

darraghsherwin wrote: »

For me, primes are only worth their money if they are going to be used for a specific area like wildlife and that is what you want to concentrate on.
So if you're photography is pretty general, you may not see a point in primes.

I have to agree there. In general, zooms are for specific tasks.

They also take a bit of getting used to, if you're more used to zoom. You need to work more on composition and positioning with primes.

Both have advantages and disadvantages.

ThOnda

0utpost31 wrote: »

Sharp portraits are always rough. You can see flecks, spots, pores, zits, pock marks and scabs in sharp portrait photos. Portraits should be soft & gentle photos, unless you're in Iraq on a National Geo contract taking pics of soldiers.

Well... It is question of personal taste how sharp should be the portrait. However having more information/data is the easier way to go - you can always loose data by processing or using filters. You can always make sharp picture soft, but to sharpen a soft image...?

Both type of lenses have their own (dis)advantages. As was said many times - just get what suits you and your purposes.

Roen

0utpost31 wrote: »

Sharp portraits are always rough. You can see flecks, spots, pores, zits, pock marks and scabs in sharp portrait photos. Portraits should be soft & gentle photos, unless you're in Iraq on a National Geo contract taking pics of soldiers.

Right, so you'd prefer to start off with a 'soft, gentle' image than one that is sharp?
I can't speak for everyone, but any portrait photographer I know would prefer to start with a sharp image and then soften the skin via post processing, and that goes for film or digital. You can always soften an image after the fact, it's impossible to create resolution where none exists.

If you can give me a valid reason to start with a soft portrait I'd be surprised.

I can repeat what Magicbastarder and ThOnda said already but I can't make you understand it.

0utpost31 wrote: »

*tumbleweed*

While I agree about the horse shots you took the above just about sums up the rest of your contribution. Well done.

Anyway @ OP

If low light photography is something you consider the fastest you'll get out of a zoom is ƒ2.8. Primes can go to ƒ1 or in extreme cases as low as ƒ.75.
Image stabilisation is well and good for handholding, but if you have a moving subject it's not going to help.

Light transmission for a given aperture is also dependent on the number of elements, the type of glass that they're made out of and the coatings on the elements.

More elements means more light lost through reflection. Primes have less elements, therefore pass through more light. So a ƒ2.8 prime and a ƒ2.8 zoom will have different light transmission values, the prime being better by about 1/3 of a stop at the same aperture value. Again this aids shutterspeed.

Primes tend to have richer colour saturation, better contrast and in a more abstract terms they tend 'draw' a scene better than zooms.

They can also provide for a more three dimensional look a lá certain Leica glass that I have yet to see with a zoom.

I know a member here who managed to capture that look recently with a very past canon prime. Something which I'm not sure a ƒ2.8 zoom could replicate.

Primes also provide easier manual focus and often provide faster autofocus due to their larger apertures. You also won't get focus shift problems with a prime as you do with a zoom, as in you focus on something, zoom in and your focus will have shifted.

Primes in general have closer minimum focusing distances than zooms.

The sharpness thing has been pointed out as has the greater control over DoF. I won't go into it further.

I could on about a prime 'forcing you to think differently', but personally I think that's a bunch of elitist crap.

Zooms have their place, but I'll almost always reach for a prime if I have a chance.


Hope it helps.

amcinroy

Roen wrote: »

More elements means more light lost through reflection. Primes have less elements, therefore pass through more light. So a ƒ2.8 prime and a ƒ2.8 zoom will have different light transmission values, the prime being better by about 1/3 of a stop at the same aperture value. Again this aids shutterspeed.

Roen, I could pick up on a lot of the inaccuracies in your post, but I can't let that one lie.

An f2.8 is an f2.8 is an f2.8

If an f2.8 was different between lenses, zoom or prime, we would all be in one big mess.

I would suggest that the 1/3 stop difference you are seeing is more to do with lens makers calibration and QC than with light transmission differences between zoom and prime.

Also, your statement about f2.8 being the max aperture for a zoom is incorrect

Zuiko Digital 14-35mm f2.0
Zuiko Digital ED 35-100mm f2.0

spring to mind

Climate Expert

amcinroy wrote: »

Roen, I could pick up on a lot of the inaccuracies in your post, but I can't let that one lie.

An f2.8 is an f2.8 is an f2.8

If an f2.8 was different between lenses, zoom or prime, we would all be in one big mess.

I would suggest that the 1/3 stop difference you are seeing is more to do with lens makers calibration and QC than with light transmission differences between zoom and prime.

As an optical engineer what Roen is saying is correct.
F numbers are just the ratio of focal length to aperture. It shouldn't be an absolute measure of light input.
More surfaces mean more light loss as well.

Roen

By all means Amcinroy, fire ahead. The one you picked as an example is wrong for starters, a quick google will have told you that.

Apologies on the ƒ2.0 zooms, I wasn't aware of those. I didn't mean to lead the OP down the wrong path.
I'll be more than happy to learn if anything else I've stated is wrong. That's what the forum is all about!

Cheers City, it's good to have a knowledgeable voice on the subject, it's a long time since I studied optics.

amcinroy

I am trained in optical physics myself and am aware of t-stops.

But the fact remains that QC on lens aperture will have higher sigma than any transmission difference. I have had lenses that have been 1/2 to 2/3 stops out and these weren't related to zoom/prime.

Fajitas!

Right... real life example time, I was doing makeup headshots for work last sunday, last night and will be doing it again tonight. I used the 135 f/2 for it all, even though I had my 70-200 2.8 IS in the bag. Why?

Both lenses are great, have good AF (Though the 135 is so much faster), pin sharp (Though, again, 135 is sharper) and produce great colours (Guess what though - 135 has better colours).

But, the real deciding factors are:
a)size - The zoom is twice the size of the prime. That can only introduce more shake.
b)weight - I'd have a pain in my arm after 5 hours work if I used the 70-200 all night.
c)focusing distance - The 135 focuses that tiny bit closer. That's what I need.

I was doing a shoot for a models portfolio yesterday. Again, I used the 135. We were outside of the studio, and I wanted to shoot wide open for minimal depth of field. Now, the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 isn't enough to make me choose, but the f/2 at f/2... or anywhere else up along the range, is much sharper than the 70-200. But that wasn't the deciding factor.

I didn't want to use a big white lens for what was an informal shoot. Yes, the 70-200 looks impressive, but it's the photo's that'll do the talking for me

Context is an incredibly important part though - If I'm shooting a gig, and can work with 2.8, I'll go for my 24-70. It's handy, however, if light is too low, or the stage lights are awful, having a 50 1.4 or a 35 1.4 in your bag is fantastic. Can get you out of some tricky situations.

The 50 1.4 is also a pretty discreet lens to have (Even with the lens hood on) in comparison to the 24-70 2.8, and descretion can often be incredibly handy.

However, if I'm to shoot a wedding or general social event, I'll use zooms the whole day long really - I'm much more comfortable using them in such a situation.

So, all in all, it depends on the context, the light, and how the photographer works.

Some people just shoot primes, some just shoot zooms, but you may as well go for both if you can. No harm in doing so. Excluding your wallet.

JesterWX

jackdaw wrote: »

I'm drooling here over that collection !!!

Drool some more.

Camera Equipment

35mm Film Cameras

Olympus OM-10 (x2)
Olympus OM-20
Olympus OM-1 MD
Olympus OM-2n

Lenses

Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/1,8 (x3)
Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/1,4
Olympus Zuiko 28mm f/2,8
Olympus Zuiko 35mm f/2,8 (with case)
Olympus Zuiko 135mm f/3,5
Olympus Zuiko 35-70mm f/4
Olympus Zuiko 75-150mm f/4 (with case)
Olympus Zuiko 100-200mm f/5

Miranda 24mm (x2)
Vivitar 28-200mm
Hoya 75-205mm f/4 (with case)
Hanimex 80-200mm f/4,5
Ozunon 35-70mm f3,5-f4,8
Paragon 135mm f/2,8
Cobra 28-70mm f/3,8-f4,8

Digital Cameras

Olympus E-410

Lenses

Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-42mm f3,5-f5,6
Olympus Zuiko Digital 40-150mm f3,5-f4,5
Sigma DC 55mm-200mm f4-f5,6

amcinroy

JesterWX wrote: »

Drool some more.

Ozunon 35-70mm f3,5-f4,8

Licking lips.

But getting back to the OP.

There is a lot to be said for using zoom lenses on really cold days when the wind is howling around you. But on warm summers evenings there's nothing more satisfying than changing prime lenses around and giving the legs a work.

magicbastarder

JesterWX wrote: »

Drool some more.

i should get a mate of mine to post his kit list. he sold 12 OM Zuiko primes and 3 OM Zuiko zooms a while back to clear out some space for his more useful lenses. i picked up a 90mm f2 macro from him.

0utpost31

I can't speak for everyone, but any portrait photographer I know would prefer to start with a sharp image and then soften the skin via post processing, and that goes for film or digital. You can always soften an image after the fact, it's impossible to create resolution where none exists.

Understood.:)

*tumbleweed*

Roen wrote: »

While I agree about the horse shots you took the above just about sums up the rest of your contribution. Well done.

Jesus no need to get narky.:pac:

Fajitas you hit the nail on the head there with that real life scenario cheers.

DaireQuinlan

amcinroy wrote: »

I am trained in optical physics myself and am aware of t-stops.

But the fact remains that QC on lens aperture will have higher sigma than any transmission difference. I have had lenses that have been 1/2 to 2/3 stops out and these weren't related to zoom/prime.

Don't motion picture lenses still have t-stops along with f-stops on the lenses ? Thought I'd read that somewhere. I'd agree with the above though, I'd say variations between individual lenses probably swamps any differences down to the design of the lenses themselves. Just googling this now, puts the loss down to about maybe 1/4 of a stop for a prime and 1/3 of a stop for a good zoom. Modern multi coating and TTL metering has pretty much done away with the need for T-Stops.

Roen

0utpost31 wrote: »

Understood.:)




Jesus no need to get narky.:pac:

Apologies
The snobbery just wells up from time to time :pac:

sineadw

All's already been said about primes (I love my primes... loooooove...) but I wanted to add to the 1.4 versus 1.8. I have both and have used both a lot. The 1.8 is great and lovely and sharp, and a total steal for the money. Its nowhere near as sharp as the 1.4 though. And the autofocus is much faster, even in really low light. Its just a lovely, lovely lens to work with.

Its a HELL of a lot lighter than my 24-70 2.8 as well... Buy it! Now!

Fajitas!

Meant to include some of this in my original post...

Roen wrote: »

Right, so you'd prefer to start off with a 'soft, gentle' image than one that is sharp?
I can't speak for everyone, but any portrait photographer I know would prefer to start with a sharp image and then soften the skin via post processing, and that goes for film or digital. You can always soften an image after the fact, it's impossible to create resolution where none exists.

If you can give me a valid reason to start with a soft portrait I'd be surprised.

I make the most of my bucks from portraiture, and 90% of the time, I need to have sharpness for that, the other 10% is arty farty stuff. I'll use my lensbaby or a lens at it's minimum focusing distance for that. But it's for myself moreso than clients.

They can also provide for a more three dimensional look a lá certain Leica glass that I have yet to see with a zoom.

I know a member here who managed to capture that look recently with a very past canon prime. Something which I'm not sure a ƒ2.8 zoom could replicate.

That would have been me, using the 85mm 1.2 for a fashion shoot. Shooting at 1.2 - 1.6 throughout. The results I got would have been impossible with a zoom - No zoom that I've seen anyways! With minimal sharpening in post processing, the model is jumping out from the background.

I could on about a prime 'forcing you to think differently', but personally I think that's a bunch of elitist crap.

It sure is. You think whatever way you think, the difference between taking a few steps forward or back, or rotating your wrist ( :pac: )won't change your thought process.

fguihen

I could on about a prime 'forcing you to think differently', but personally I think that's a bunch of elitist crap.

You think whatever way you think, the difference between taking a few steps forward or back, or rotating your wrist ( :pac: )won't change your thought process.

From my own expirience, if i have a zoom on, il happily stand in one place and alter the zoom to reframe my subject. when expirementing with the 50mm prime i cant do that. often a subject is too far away for me to take a decent image of it as i would with the zoom. in this case i had to think of a different way of taking an image of the subject, perhaps showing its envroinment more, and the fact that you could see the subject, albeit a bit small, but in its envrionment made a nice photo i would never think of with a zoom, id just zoom in and shoot.

perhaps its because im new to this whole photography lark, and wouldnt instinctively think of taking such shots. Regardless, it certainly taught me a few things to put on and leave the prime on. im not elitist, i only have a 400d and a nifty fifty prime, along with what you would class as cheapo zooms. i dont do this for a living and dont display my photos as art. I dont have any white canon lens's But I do like to learn each time im out, and I have learned that the prime made me think differently.

im not a pro though so my opinion prob doesnt matter

Freddie59

fguihen wrote: »

From my own expirience, if i have a zoom on, il happily stand in one place and alter the zoom to reframe my subject. when expirementing with the 50mm prime i cant do that. often a subject is too far away for me to take a decent image of it as i would with the zoom. in this case i had to think of a different way of taking an image of the subject, perhaps showing its envroinment more, and the fact that you could see the subject, albeit a bit small, but in its envrionment made a nice photo i would never think of with a zoom, id just zoom in and shoot.

perhaps its because im new to this whole photography lark, and wouldnt instinctively think of taking such shots. Regardless, it certainly taught me a few things to put on and leave the prime on. im not elitist, i only have a 400d and a nifty fifty prime, along with what you would class as cheapo zooms. i dont do this for a living and dont display my photos as art. I dont have any white canon lens's But I do like to learn each time im out, and I have learned that the prime made me think differently.

im not a pro though so my opinion prob doesnt matter

Like you I'm new to all this (6 months with a 450D). I have the 17-85 IS lens and the 50mm 1.4. My own experience is that the 1.4 tends to overexpose things, and you need to compensate sometimes. But it is really sharp. I would agree with the comment though that a sharp, pristine image is of the essence.

You could compare it to video, where it is ESSENTIAL for your footage to be as sharp and noise-free as possible. Once you start out with substandard stuff, well, there's only one way, and that's down.

My two cents worth.:)

democrates

0utpost31 wrote: »

Are your nieces really fast alien creatures like the predator or something?

You met them then, lol.
They were chasing bubbles, lots of darting about from about 8 feet away to where I was parked, turning, arms in the air (them not me), and for all the shots I got I missed a few good ones because by the time I
1) framed with zoom
2) started the mf
the scene had changed, head turned, arm raised blocking face etc. a portion of a second and it may be gone.

Forgot to mention I was going for close with low dof for bokeh, next time I'll try with a prime and see how I get along with mf, the af can be hit and miss if you're trying to pick out a face when there are other moving objects framed in the foreground.

Of course video is a solution for blanket capture of the event, but others had that in the bag and anyway I find it's those certain photos that usually gain more lasting appeal (imho etc).

Morrisseeee

Olympus E-410
Lenses
Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-42mm f3,5-f5,6
Olympus Zuiko Digital 40-150mm f3,5-f4,5
Sigma DC 55mm-200mm f4-f5,6

JesterWX:
How do you find the E410 with the 40-150mm , does it produce nice sharp images 'hand-held' ? ie. I'm struggling to get my pics pin-sharp, ie. when I zoom in on my pic I find it blurry/out-of-focus ?
That 40-150mm is the old lens isn't it ? ie. not the new ED one ?

0utpost31

After a few comments here from 85mm 1.2 users, I've read up about the lens.

I want it now.

BanzaiBk

I received a gorgeous 24mm 2.8 today. I my prime lenses, each to their own I guess:)

Borderfox

Couldnt resist as I still have the 85mm f1.8, I mean the 85mm f1.8 is no small lens but the f1.2 is a monster

DaireQuinlan

Borderfox wrote: »

Couldnt resist as I still have the 85mm f1.8, I mean the 85mm f1.8 is no small lens but the f1.2 is a monster

Holy crap, that is enormous ! I love the way it actually looks bigger on the inside than it physically is. Its a Tardis lens :-) Nikon really needs one of these. Although they do have a rather spectacular 85 1.4. Actually screw the 85mm, Nikon needs a well corrected 50mm 1.2 AFS aswell. Unaccountably completely lacking from its line up at the moment.